As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Friday, October 14, 2011

Have they Found the $2.3 Trillion Rumsfeld Stole Yet?

As usual, the Truthers miss the true story. While getting all up in arms over the fake claim that Donald Rumsfeld claimed that $2.3 trillion was stolen, they missed the real scandal of just how bad Pentagon accounting practices are. As someone who works in both IT and finance, I can at least take satisfaction in the fact that none of my projects has ever blown $6 billion and still not done the job.

The DOD has already promised to clean up its accounting practices for public scrutiny by 2017, and has pledged an estimated $300 million annually to do just that. They will likely need an additional $1 billion to meet that goal, CPI reports, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is allegedly poised to announce a speeding-up of the auditing process, which might raise the cost of reigning in spending even more.

The CPI report states: "Experts say the Pentagon's accounting has never been reliable. A lengthy effort by the military services to implement new financial systems at a cost so far of more than $6 billion has itself been plagued by overruns and delays, senior defense officials say."

Just last month, the Government Accountability Office said in a report that although the services can now fully track incoming appropriations, they still cannot demonstrate their funds are being spent as they should.

I'd like to see where you cover Thomas Kean's comments "extensively." Or Robert Baer, Mark Rossini, Tony Shaffer, etc... and so on. With regards to the "Who Is Rich Blee?" podcast. Where is Alfreda Frances Bikowsky mentioned on this site? You're full of it.

Poor jon jon, he must be pissed off at that luke rudkowski's video of the retard swearing at the cops has gotten more views,195,478 views, than his "Peace Activist Arrested at White House Anti-War Protest" video,357 views, lol.

all that effort, sacrafice humiliation and getting hammeroids from sitting on the cold cell floor ALL FOR NOTHING!!!

go on jon jon, go and sit on luke's face till he stops wiggling, everyone will think it was an accident,after all no one will believe it was an "inside job".

jon jon, you should consider having a cannon shoot a canon ball at you and you catch it with your stomach. make a video of that and you will also get 100,000s of views.

I suggest you read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. It won a Pulitzer by the way. Wright notes that CIA conduct in regard to withholding information amounted to obstruction of justice in the Cole investigation. There were key links between the Cole investigation and the 9/11 hijackers. Oddly enough Tom Wilshire, the deputy chief of Alec Station, knew that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were linked to Cole plotters but for reasons he has never explained continued to withhold this information from the Cole investigators.

I have no idea why being dismissive of this story is something of which to be proud. Over the years I have heard comments from debunkers like "Well all the nonsense about missiles and thermite distract from real questions." Yet many debunkers are just as dismissive of the real questions. Why is that?

Yet many debunkers are just as dismissive of the real questions. Why is that?

The key is intent. Nobody disputes that better information sharing could have prevented the attacks. Where Responsible Truthers go wrong is the idea that some of the information withholding was deliberate, for the purposes of permitting the attacks to succeed.

Until Responsible Truthers can demonstrate that some individual acted outside their reasonable discretion at the time, I'm not too interested in who they're blaming this month. Rich Blee is just the latest scapegoat.

"Where Responsible Truthers go wrong is the idea that some of the information withholding was deliberate, for the purposes of permitting the attacks to succeed."

Why was the information withheld? Nobody in the US government has credibly answered this question. The 9/11 Commission failed to do so.

The context of the withholding is not indicative of good faith conduct by the intelligence community. At the time we are told the CIA was extremely worried about a possible terrorist attack. So not telling the FBI about known al Qaeda operatives associated with this possible terrorist attack is extremely difficult to understand. The FBI unit that received the information in late August of '01 went of their way to obstruct the Cole investigation.

Why was the information withheld? Nobody in the US government has credibly answered this question. The 9/11 Commission failed to do so.

There's "credible" and then there's "satisfying". The official explanations of 4th Amendment protocol, turf wars, incompetence, etc. aren't satisfying. But I don't see what's so hard to believe about them.

Counterexamples here don't disprove the official explanations. They just further prove incompetence.

You are demanding from truthers proof of malevolent intent, while for yourself you settle for a lesser standard of assuming benign intent.

Most people do assume benign intent. Innocent until proven guilty, etc.

I guess I don't understand why truthers claim to have so much evidence and then get irritable when asked to demonstrate anything with it. So forget about malevolent intent for a moment. How about just proving abuse of discretion?

RGT, you don't assume benign intent at the investigation stage. You simply determine what are the facts.In particular you don't assume that no investigation is needed based on assumptions of benign intent.

Richard Clarke's claim that 60 CIA knew of the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the USA and did not tell the White House appears to show abuse of discretion. The revelations in the recent "Who is Richard Blee" material appears to show abuse of discretion. The revelations in "Disconnecting the Dots" appear to show abuse of discretioon. And James Bamford was saying years ago that the silencing of FBI agents Rossini and Miller was an abuse of discretion.

Ian, the tolerance the posters on this board show for your persistent lying about the widows indicts their credibility.

IF, as they believe, 9/11 was an inside job, and IF, as they believe, the same elements of the US government that pulled it off either paid or threatened witnesses and investigation officials who know the truth about 9/11 to lie about it, who says they won't do the same during the 2nd investigation?

Also, IF, as they believe, the people in the US gov't who pulled off 9/11 had no qualms about killing thousands of US citizens to further their war agenda, why haven't they killed thousands more in the past 10 years when people marched against the Iraq War?

From a faulty premise you arrive at a faulty conclusion. That's the kind of logic dictators use, and their toadies are too cowed to correct them. But you are only the dictator of your own mind. You should try encouraging dissent in your mind, and a free press.

John, maybe they will do the same during the second investigation. The difference this time is, we'll be prepared. We can stand outside the building with big signs saying "Why Not Ask Sibel?" and "What About Behrooz Sarshar?" and "Who is Rich Blee" and any number of questions they're trying to sidestep. We can take the C-span tapes of the hearings and make 10,000 Youtubes and a feature film, and we have the numbers in the movement to get the truth out.

Why do you think the government would want to kill "thousands more in the past 10 years when people marched against the Iraq War?" What purpose would that serve?

The difference this time is, we'll be prepared. We can stand outside the building with big signs saying "Why Not Ask Sibel?" and "What About Behrooz Sarshar?" and "Who is Rich Blee" and any number of questions they're trying to sidestep. We can take the C-span tapes of the hearings and make 10,000 Youtubes and a feature film, and we have the numbers in the movement to get the truth out.

Hey, if these delusions help you sleep better at night, more power to you. I'd still suggest seeking psychiatric treatment. You're not well, Brian.

Why do you think the government would want to kill "thousands more in the past 10 years when people marched against the Iraq War?" What purpose would that serve?

The same purpose that killing thousands on 9/11 served. You're not very bright, are you?

"Why do you think the government would want to kill "thousands more in the past 10 years when people marched against the Iraq War?" What purpose would that serve?"

Brian has a point here.

The 9/11 Truth Movement's ultimate goal was to successfully undermine the anti-war movement. The government didn't need to kill people to silence anyone, they knew that when some idiot with a "9/11 was an inside job!" banner passed in front of a camera all credibility went out the window.

The shadow government didn't need assassins, they had Brian, Jon Gold, and the rest of the troofers doing their work for them.

If the purpose of killing 3000 on 9/11 was to incite Americans to give up their constitutional liberties and approve of two stupid wars, what purpose would be served by killing any more? The government can't afford any more wars. A parasite must never kill its host.

If the purpose of killing 3000 on 9/11 was to incite Americans to give up their constitutional liberties and approve of two stupid wars, what purpose would be served by killing any more? The government can't afford any more wars. A parasite must never kill its host.

This is a nice intellectual exercise and all, Brian, but you're forgetting one small detail. The government wasn't responsible for 9/11.

RGF, in the investigative phase information is gathered. If presumption of innocence were used as an excuse to avoid investigation, then there would be no reason to have any investigation at all--ever.

James Bamford and Richard Clarke see abuse of discretion. It's worthy of investigation. You are using Argumentum ad Numerum as an excuse for your own willful blindness and laziness.

MGF, why don't you stick to your area of expertise, geology, and tell us again that California has more oil reserves than the 'stans.

RGT, there is not going to be a dispositive opinion until there is a full and honest investigation. You are engaging in the classic circular BushBot argument: We don't need an investigation because there is no proof of guilt.

RGT, there is not going to be a dispositive opinion until there is a full and honest investigation. You are engaging in the classic circular BushBot argument: We don't need an investigation because there is no proof of guilt.

Don't worry about proving guilt or naming names right now. You only need to make out a plausible case that one or more individuals, intentionally or unintentionally, committed an act or omission that fell outside the realm of their reasonable judgment under the circumstances at the time.

I'm starting to wonder whether Responsible Truthers are just working backwards from "9/11 happened, therefore somebody on the inside must be punished". They keep picking out guilty people without telling us what they're guilty of.

RGT, you are playing dumb. The "Who is Richard Blee" story tells exactly what they did and didn't do. "Disconnecting the Dots" tells what was done and not done. In the case of Maltbie and Frasca's sabotaging of the Moussaoui FISA search warrant, we know exactly what they did. In the case of Condi Rice ignoring dire warnings and keeping Richard Clarke away from the president, we know exactly what she did.

WAQ, you've forgotten that Brian has tons of evidence. He's going to present to a judge all the baffling aspects of the collapse, such as the speed, symmetry, totality, the molten steel in the pile, the burnt baboon fur, the radiation detected in the dust clouds, and the alien spaceships photographed above the burning towers.

Ian, I do have lots of evidence. None of it has to do with baboons or radiation or alien spacecraft, however. You make stuff up.

So what evidence do you have, Brian?

Wait, don't tell me: it's the "baffling" aspects of the collapse, such as speed, symmetry, and totality, the pulverization of the concrete, and molten steel.

Do I have that right, Brian? It's just the sort of delusional nonsense that I would expect from a failed janitor who wears women's underwear. You might as well include alien spaceships, radiation, and baboons.

Wow James, you really showed that straw man! Hit 'im again! Help Pat with his terrible form, though: he won't be able to carry out his threat to punch David Ray Griffin without some SERIOUS help, and his "10 Straw Men a Day" regimen is doing him no good at all. Keep on punching. It really impresses Ian and M. Gregory.

John, maybe they will do the same during the second investigation. The difference this time is, we'll be prepared. We can stand outside the building with big signs saying "Why Not Ask Sibel?" and "What About Behrooz Sarshar?" and "Who is Rich Blee" and any number of questions they're trying to sidestep.

Which will have absolutely no effect on this imaginary second investigation. All those issues would be whitewashed again. Plus, aren't truthers already carrying signs and making Youtube videos?None of that is helping even to launch a new investigation.

Why do you think the government would want to kill "thousands more in the past 10 years when people marched against the Iraq War?" What purpose would that serve?

Maybe thousands is an exaggeration, but more US citizens deaths would strengthen this so-called agenda that truthers believe the Govt has to turn the US into a police state. People will support anything if they think their personal safety is constantly threatened.

that "delusional nonsense" has caused 1600 architects and engineers to put their careers on the line, including 46 PhD engineers.

And I have to point out ONCE AGAIN that the head of AE911Truth, Richard Gage, USED CARDBOARD BOXES TO SIMULATE THE COLLAPSE OF A STEEL STRUCTURE!!! If the rest of these architects and engineers believe that to be an appropriate simulation, their degrees aren't worth shit. They are putting their "careers on the line" not because of any threats of loss of money, jobs or reputation, but because they're incompetent.

Ian, that "delusional nonsense" has caused 1600 architects and engineers to put their careers on the line, including 46 PhD engineers.

Getting back to this, what if I trotted out a list of biology PhDs who endorse "intelligent design"? You know there are many who exist. Would that indicate that "intelligent design" is valid and evolution in question, or would it indicate that those who endorse it are either frauds or incompetents?

Brian, I know you have a hard time with logic and reason, which is to be expected from a failed janitor who sniffs glue, but just think about this for a while.

John, the point is that we'll be able to show the whitewash for a whitewash blow by blow as it happens. New investigations will provide an organized framework for debate and discussion.

Why would you think more citizens' death would strengthen the police-state agenda? Too much fear will make people numb to fear after a while. A friendly police state is more likely to last than an oppressive and terror-stricken one. Fearing for personal safety is not realistic. 3,000 out of 300,000,000 died on 9/11. That's 0.001%. 99.999% of us did not die.

A terrorist attack under a Republican government would give the impression that our police state is incompetent. A terrorist attack under a Democratic government would generate suspicions on the part of Dems that it was a Republican dirty trick.

Richard Gage did not use cardboard boxes to simulate the collapse of a steel building. He used cardboard boxes to demonstrate Newton's Third Law and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Do you have any reason to think that cardboard boxes are not subject to the same laws of physics that govern everything else?

Ian, let's see your list of biology PhDs who support intelligent design. While you're at it, let's see your list of architectural and engineering PhDs who have expressed confidence in NIST's findings about the collapses of the towers.

Why would you think more citizens' death would strengthen the police-state agenda? Too much fear will make people numb to fear after a while. A friendly police state is more likely to last than an oppressive and terror-stricken one. Fearing for personal safety is not realistic. 3,000 out of 300,000,000 died on 9/11. That's 0.001%. 99.999% of us did not die.

Hmmm....nope, it still doesn't make a lick of sense. I do like "friendly police state" though. That's up there with "rake on rake" and "smoldering carpets" among Brian Good's classics.

So which police states are friendly, Brian? North Korea? Burma? Syria?

A terrorist attack under a Republican government would give the impression that our police state is incompetent. A terrorist attack under a Democratic government would generate suspicions on the part of Dems that it was a Republican dirty trick.

"Our polics state"? Also, a terrorist attack under a Democrat might give YOU the impression that it was a dirty trick, but that's because you're a lunatic who believes in magic thermite elves. Normal people won't get that impression.

Richard Gage did not use cardboard boxes to simulate the collapse of a steel building. He used cardboard boxes to demonstrate Newton's Third Law and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Do you have any reason to think that cardboard boxes are not subject to the same laws of physics that govern everything else?

Brian, please explain to us your understanding of Newton's Third Law and 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Ian, let's see your list of biology PhDs who support intelligent design. While you're at it, let's see your list of architectural and engineering PhDs who have expressed confidence in NIST's findings about the collapses of the towers.

Brian, I will give you my list of Biology PhDs who believe in intelligent design when you admit that you are Petgoat.

I will also give you my list of architectural and engineering PhDs who expresed confidence in the NIST report when you give me your list of astronomers who have expressed doubt that Russell's Teapot is orbiting the sun out by Mars.

He's been coming to SLC for how many years? And every time he replies he gives us evidence of his behavior, motives and agenda.

Brian is a certifiable nutcase, no question about it. His behavior towards the Truth Movement got him into trouble, his flammatory remarks to Fetzer were seen, his stalking of Carol Brouillet, Kevin Ryan and others was talked about amoung the Truthers and they all said that he's not Truther material.

So why is Brian hanging around here?

A: He doesn't have a lifeB: He's lazyC: He's incompetentD: He acts like a child

We can study Brian through his own behavior. And there's not a damn thing Brian can do about it, except don't reply back.

After the 9/11 Commission issued its report, the Jersey Girls pressured the Administration to follow its recommendations. They specifically commended the Commission for not politicizing blame in the report. "The USS Cole was bombed under Clinton's watch, and 9/11 happened under Bush's watch," said Rosemary Dillard. "I don't blame either administration; I blame the people who were reporting to them."

Rosemary Dillard is blaming the people, not the Government.

So what's that about the "Unanswered Questions" from the 9/11 Widows you'd been so despritely lying about??

John, nobody can possibly think that a hollow cardboard box is a model of a building that has a structural core in the middle.

You're quibbling about semantics. You might as well say Gage is lying when he shows a slide of the WTC and says "This is the World Trade Center." NO NO NO, IDIOT! That's a projection of light on a movie screen! That's not the World Trade Center!

WAQo, I'd like to know where you get your erroneous information. Or do you just make it up?

I'm not lying about the widows' questions. They had 300 questions and they got 27 answers--as anyone who looks at Appendix 4 at justicefor911.org can see.

John, nobody can possibly think that a hollow cardboard box is a model of a building that has a structural core in the middle.

Well, Gage does. You're just too deluded to see it. He uses the cardboard box as an example to show what should have happened to a steel building on 9/11.

You're quibbling about semantics. You might as well say Gage is lying when he shows a slide of the WTC and says "This is the World Trade Center." NO NO NO, IDIOT! That's a projection of light on a movie screen! That's not the World Trade Center!

John, nobody can possibly think that a hollow cardboard box is a model of a building that has a structural core in the middle.

So in other words, Richard Gage is a fraud. Thanks for clearing that up, Brian.

You're quibbling about semantics. You might as well say Gage is lying when he shows a slide of the WTC and says "This is the World Trade Center." NO NO NO, IDIOT! That's a projection of light on a movie screen! That's not the World Trade Center!

Poor Brian, he's desperately defending Richard Gage's work when it's obvious the man is a charlatan. Your desperation is like the Bushbots who insisted that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.

WAQo, I'd like to know where you get your erroneous information. Or do you just make it up?

Brian, you're a liar who was thrown out of the truth movement, so his information is not erroneous. You're just desperately squealing to try to cover it up.

I'm not lying about the widows' questions. They had 300 questions and they got 27 answers--as anyone who looks at Appendix 4 at justicefor911.org can see.

See what I mean? Brian is trying to cover up the facts with irrelevant dumbspam about "widows". Typical Bushbot tactic.

Brian probably thinks that Gage should've lit the cardboard boxes on fire to simulate the effects it had on the structure to turn it into dust. Since he believes that magical fairies turned hardened steel into "dust".

UtterFail, please advise which of the widows' questions were politically motivated, and grossly biased.

WAQo, so if you google "Bigfoot" do you go around repeating whatever you find?

You don't consider that some people were highly motivated to lie about me because it was the only way they could respond when I exposed their wrongdoing?

Wikipedia says "They specifically commended the Commission for not politicizing blame in the report." And you believe them. I never heard of Rosemary Dillard. I am not aware that she ever was in a position to speak for the Jersey widows. She lived in Michigan.

The questions had not been answered in 2004 and they have not been answered today. What's to update? 27 have been answered, and 273 have not.

John, Gage doed not think a hollow cardboard box is a model of a building that has a structural core in the middle. He is demonstrating basic laws of physics. The boxes do not demonstrate what should have happened and he doesn't say they do.

If your God is a moron perhaps that is because you make Him in your own image.

WAQo, where did you get the idea that I was thrown out of the truth movement?

Technically if you took Dickie Gage's cardboard boxes to the airport and put them in front of a 767 they'd get crushed, so maybe Gage is onto something because neither tower reacted like a giant cardboard box.

"Brian Good is an alleged 9/11 truth activist whose reputation has been built primarily around belligerent attacks against others in the 9/11 truth movement.", "He has zero credibility, respect, or influence and is seen only as a provocateur." - Craig Ranke CIT

"Brian Good is an absolute joke - and it's plain to see. His MO is no different to the JREFers that have come and gone over the years." - Lin Kuei

WAQo, truthers don't say anything bad about me. The people who say bad things about me are liars who are not invited to speak at conferences.

False. You've been banned from the truth movement for being an obsessed liar who stalks people and wears women's underwear. Just ask Craig Ranke or Kevin Barrett or any number of other esteemed truthers.

Thanks for proving my point, WAQo, None of those people you quote are invited to speak at conferences.

Brian, do you know who does get invited to speak at conferences? Bill Deagle, whose ideas about modified attack baboons and micro-nukes make a lot more sense than your ideas about magic thermite elves.

I never heard of Rosemary Dillard. I am not aware that she ever was in a position to speak for the Jersey widows. She lived in Michigan.

Of course Rosemary Dillard is not in a position to speak for the Jersey widows, but a failed janitor and sex stalker who wears women's underwear and lives in California is in a position to speak for them.

You squeal and squeal and squeal and squeal because you've been pwn3d so many times. It's hilarious how pathetic you are, Brian.

You can't deduce that the changes are because the new design is based on the fantasy that fires brought down the original towers?

We'd better listen to him, guys. He's the chair of the civil engineering department at Purdue.

Oh wait, no, he's a failed janitor who came up with such unintentionally hilarious ideas as "meatball on a fork" and "rake on rake".

Also, Brian, it wasn't just fires that brought the towers down. They were also hit by airplanes. The fact that you're unaware of the airplane impacts goes a long way towards explaining why you're so confused about 9/11.

John, Gage doed(sic) not think a hollow cardboard box is a model of a building that has a structural core in the middle. He is demonstrating basic laws of physics. The boxes do not demonstrate what should have happened and he doesn't say they do.

You either didn't watch the video, are intentionally lying, live in your own little world where you see only what you want to see, or are the stupidest person on the face of the earth.

To point out again: He says, grabbing the cardboard boxes, "I have a 95 story building. I have two 15 story buildings that I'm going to drop."And, "The one that has 80.000 tons of structural steel on it. It doesn't even give." He is obviously using it as a model.

And as I pointed out before, he confuses Newton's 2nd Law (conservation of momentum) with his third law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction)

Anyone who comes here (all 20 of you) can watch the video and decide for yourself.

You either didn't watch the video, are intentionally lying, live in your own little world where you see only what you want to see, or are the stupidest person on the face of the earth.

3 of the 4 above. Brian is a hopeless and hilarious liar. He's so dumb that he couldn't hold onto a job mopping floors, and obviously inhabits an alternate universe in which new investigations will be made, in which "meatball on a fork" gets published in an engineering journal, and in which he gets to marry Carol Brouillet.

John, Gage does not believe a 3-foot cardboard box is a 1365-foot building, so obviously he's joking when he says "I have a 95 story building." I'm sorry you're not smart enough to recognize this, but it's not my fault.

Ian, why does it require an alternate universe to have a world where the widows' 273 pending questions will be answered and NIST will fulfill the charge given it by Congress to explain why and how the towers fell?

John, Gage does not believe a 3-foot cardboard box is a 1365-foot building, so obviously he's joking when he says "I have a 95 story building." I'm sorry you're not smart enough to recognize this, but it's not my fault.

Brian, your slavish devotion to such a con artist is amusing. You live in a fantasy world.

Ian, why does it require an alternate universe to have a world where the widows' 273 pending questions will be answered and NIST will fulfill the charge given it by Congress to explain why and how the towers fell?

Because nobody cares about these things. You care, but you're an unemployed janitor who stalks people online. Nobody cares what you think.

Also, we already know why and how the towers fell, and the widows questions are irrelevant.

But by all means, Brian, spend the next 10 years exactly as you spent the last 10: babbling about magic thermite and talking about how some day, there will be a new investigation.

We don't know how the towers fell. NIST dodged the question. Basically they say "They fell because they fell. You can see in the videos that they fell."

I'd like to see you try to explain it. You're going to come up with some fantasy like an entire story of the building suddenly vaporized and then the top came hammering down and took the rest of the building down. You guys are so ignorant that you imagine that a hammer can sink a nail in one blow.

Brian, they haven't updated their website since 2004. They obviously don't care. You're just a cross-dressing pervert who is sexually obsessed with them and you think by babbling about them endlessly, you'll win their love. It's disturbing.

We don't know how the towers fell. NIST dodged the question. Basically they say "They fell because they fell. You can see in the videos that they fell."

You don't understand how the towers fell because you're an ignorant lunatic. The rest of us who have some grasp of physics and engineering understand it.

I'd like to see you try to explain it. You're going to come up with some fantasy like an entire story of the building suddenly vaporized and then the top came hammering down and took the rest of the building down. You guys are so ignorant that you imagine that a hammer can sink a nail in one blow.

The widows recently called on the 9/11 Commission to comment on the testimony of Behrooz Sarshar.

Ian, you can not explain how the towers fell at 2/3 gravitational acceleration through a structure that was designed to resist 3 to five times the gravitational load.Stop pretending that you can. You can not explain symmetry or totality of collapse, the pulverization of the concrete, or the presence of molten steel in the rubble.

You're so ignorant you imagine that a hammer can sink a nail in one blow.

The widows recently called on the 9/11 Commission to comment on the testimony of Behrooz Sarshar.

False.

Ian, you can not explain how the towers fell at 2/3 gravitational acceleration through a structure that was designed to resist 3 to five times the gravitational load.

Of course I can. That you find such an occurrence suspicious just shows how hopelessly ignorant you are of basic science. Not that it surprises me how ignorant you are: after all, you're an unemployed janitor, not a professor of physics.

I didn't refuse to debate Willie. I proposed many alternate venues for a debate. Willie insisted that it had to be sponsored by his gossip-mongering JREF buddies Pat and James. Why do you suppose that was?

Yeah right, in your mind only you'd talk & you'd pay someone to keep Willie quiet. That's not much of a debate, but a cowards way out.

Willie insisted that it had to be sponsored by his gossip-mongering JREF buddies Pat and James. Why do you suppose that was?

Because JREF is a place where questions reguarding your theories are put to the scientific test to see if your "facts" hold any validity. But your refusal to debate only shows Pat & James that you're just sitting there making up shit & lying out your ass. And you do exactly that.

"The debate would need to be edited to remove Willie's cowardly lies involving Carol Brouillet--which have nothing to do with the fact that he stole his hero story from Pablo Ortiz, and that he is a lying con artist."

I didn't know that Carol knew Pablo Ortiz or is it in you imagination that she did meet him?

Brian, let me get this straight: You think that Willie Rodriguez, one of the heros of 9/11, is secretly a "vigilante" that took Pablo Ortiz's words and used it for his own personal gain. And your plan is to blackmail Willie with rhetoric and slanderous statements? Good luck.

But that's not a real debate if you manipulate Willie's arguements against you. Still suggesting that you're a coward and don't want to be a man and "take it in the ass" (figure of speech) from Willie?

False. This is what actually happened: you blustered about debating Willie Rodriguez "any place, any time". He challenged you to a debate hosted by Pat and James. You ran away squealing and crying from the challenge, babbling the whole time about how you would only have the debate on Carol Brouillet's radio show, even though you know full well that Carol considers you a disgusting sex predator and pervert and would never let you on her show.

Yes, I wanted Carol to have edit power over Willie's statements.

Of course you did. You're a pathetic coward in women's underwear who could never stand up to a hero like Willie, so you need the power to change the record when you lose.

Brian openly admits to being banned from 9/11 Forums "more than once":

"Having been banned myself at most of the popular 9/11 forums (sometimes more than once!) I agree that censorship is a brute-force tactic. But I also recognize that bad actors can be extremely disruptive if given the opportunity. I put quite a lot of time in at ScrewLooseChange, and people who post blatant lies persistently there are very disruptive and harmful to the credibility of the forum."

Screw Loose Change isn't Brian Good's own personal blog. Though he wishes it was, but that's his imagination.

"Carol personalized my criticisms of those two discrediting people (Kevin Barrett/William Rodriguez) as criticisms of her. She indicated in an email that if I was going to attend meetings, she wouldn't."

If Carol wasn't going to attend meetings while Brian was there is a clear indication that Brian was stalking and harassing her and Brian constantly lied about not harassing her.

"Sadly Brian is putting all his energy into counterproductive attacks, and I am doing my best to ignore him, and not let bother me, and I try to channel my anger into something productive like the work at hand."-Carol Brouillet

"Brian Good immerses himself in various truth groups with volunteer activism. He eventually gets upset, angry, antagonistic, controlling and demanding with the leaders of these groups over whatever he chooses to disagree with, and he ultimately causes disruption, division, distraction, and strife."

Ranke is not an esteemed truther. He is not invited to speak at conferences.

Carol didn't accuse me of trying to wreck her marriage. She said she thought I wanted to wreck her marriage (and she was wrong about that). Your inability to recognize these simple differences shows you for a fool.

Ranke is not an esteemed truther. He is not invited to speak at conferences.

How do you know who is esteemed in the truth movement? You're not part of the movement, as they kicked you out for being a liar and a sex stalker.

Carol didn't accuse me of trying to wreck her marriage. She said she thought I wanted to wreck her marriage (and she was wrong about that). Your inability to recognize these simple differences shows you for a fool.

See what I mean? You're a liar and a sex stalker and you pretty much admitted that you're a liar and sex stalker with this ridiculous statement. You can squeal all you want, Brian. It doesn't change the facts about you.

You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel "safe" in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again...Leave me alone- stop the email attacks on me and others. I think it probably harms your reputation more than mine, although it is horrifically embarrassing to me to think that at one time I thought of you as a friend. Now I only see you as a threat to me, my family, the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have zero confidence in your judgement and rationality."

I needn't say anymore. Brian will continue to lie about harassing and stalking Carol.

WAQo, I not only pwned Ranke every time, I forced him and that nutjob Rob Balsamo to abandon the claim that flight 77 landed at DCA runway 15 because I showed that runway 15 was not long enough for 757s to land on it.

Carol's statement complains about what she (wrongly) believed was in my mind. There is nothing in there about harassing her. She was upset because I exposed some of her friends as bigots and liars, and for a long time the only way she could process that information was to invent fantastical rationalizations for her wish that I was wrong. I did not harass her. Maybe somebody made prank phone calls (whatever happened to Troy, by the way?), but it wasn't me.

Carol's statement complains about what she (wrongly) believed was in my mind.

No, she was quite right about what was in your mind. You're a sick pervert who stalks men (Willie R.), women (Carol), and children (Chinese gymnasts).

She was upset because I exposed some of her friends as bigots and liars, and for a long time the only way she could process that information was to invent fantastical rationalizations for her wish that I was wrong. I did not harass her. Maybe somebody made prank phone calls (whatever happened to Troy, by the way?), but it wasn't me.

False. You harassed her. You tried to wreck her marriage. You did this because you are a sick perverted maniac who is incapable of having a normal relationship with people.

And this laughable paragraph above does nothing to dispel the notion that you're delusional as Carol says.

WAQo, I not only pwned Ranke every time, I forced him and that nutjob Rob Balsamo to abandon the claim that flight 77 landed at DCA runway 15 because I showed that runway 15 was not long enough for 757s to land on it.

No you didn't liar!

Craig Ranke said the following:

"Brian Good has been on an internet rampage to personally discredit CIT and the witnesses we present. He has claimed numerous times publicly that he has "kicked" my "ass" in a private email debate that we had and that I have "fled" from his questions so I have decided to make that discussion public for others to judge for themselves despite his failure to grant permission. His insistence on making claims and accusations about this discussion while not wanting others to be able to read the discussion speaks volumes.

The irony here is the fact that at the end this rather involved email discussion, where I clearly did not flee, you will see how I challenged him to a public debate that he quickly declined."

I quote:

"I clearly did not flee, you will see how I challenged him to a public debate that he quickly declined."

"You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel "safe" in your presence alone..."

Ian you lie and lie. You don't seem to recognize your circular reasoning. You seem to think I'm guilty of what you accuse me of because I'm the kind of guy that does what you accuse me of. You're wrong.

WAQo, Ranke's lying. He fled the email exchange, claiming that all my questions had been raised before (but not providing any answers). Then he lied about the email exchange by presenting only part of it on his website.

There's nothing in Carol's statement about harassment. She says she refuses to allow me to try to hurt her marriage. If I say I refuse to allow Ian to lick my butthole, that's not saying that Ian is trying to lick my butthole.

WAQo, Ranke's lying. He fled the email exchange, claiming that all my questions had been raised before (but not providing any answers). Then he lied about the email exchange by presenting only part of it on his website.

Craig said to you:

"So let's play hardball. I will debate anyone anytime anywhere on this issue. You just called Kevin a "gutless wonder" for allegedly not wanting to debate you "on the record". Do YOU have the "guts" to stand up to YOUR convictions in a debate "on the record" with me? Since you have obviously become passionate about this topic and have such a definitive opinion against the evidence we present I formally challenge you to a live debate either video or audio recorded over the phone. Do you accept or are you proclaiming yourself a "gutless wonder" by your own standards?"

And you replied:

"A written internet forum would provide an opportunity for thoughtful reponses andwell-crafted statements of the points. Real-time media such as those favored byDr. Barrett just further glib bullshit. You're already shot down, and I don't see howre-enacting it will help anything. If CIT isn't going to get the NYC platform, I'm not sure there's any point in discussing it any more."

I quote what you said in the end: I'm not sure there's any point in discussing it any more.

You backed down from Craig, period!

There's nothing in Carol's statement about harassment. She says she refuses to allow me to try to hurt her marriage.

Ian you lie and lie. You don't seem to recognize your circular reasoning. You seem to think I'm guilty of what you accuse me of because I'm the kind of guy that does what you accuse me of. You're wrong.

No, I think you're guilty of what I accuse you of because the evidence is quite clear that you're guilty of what I accuse you of.

It's obvious from the statements made by Carol, as well as your endless internet activity, that you're a disgusting pervert who stalks people.

There's nothing in Carol's statement about harassment. She says she refuses to allow me to try to hurt her marriage.

Right, you were stalking her and harassing her and telling her husband that she was having an affair with Barrett and Rodriguez. I'm sure there were other disgusting things you did (send photos of yourself in a thong, perhaps) to get her to dissociate herself from you, but I have to go with what we have evidence for.

And of course you try to get people on this blog to contact her for you since she won't have anything to do with you. That's classic stalker behavior.